Not to speak of that woman,his mother,the haunty taunty conniving former german baroness,who later thought it beneath her to attend the wedding of dear Pietie ( Margriet) because she married a commoner,dear Pieter.

What a horrible thing to do to your own granddaughter. That makes her, not Wilhemina, sound really cold.

Maura,it was a pity that Queen Wilhelmina already had died,in 1962,otherwise she would have attended Margriet's wedding,definately.
She was all for marrying the one you loved and if that would be a dutch national and a commoner at that,al the better as far as she was concerned,more then fet up as she was with the aristocracy.Btw,Queen Wilhelmina never thought much of Armgard,she disliked her,and showed it as the occasion arrose.No love lost there.

Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard in the early 50's,at the time of the crisis.A dramatic picture during the Queen's crisis
as the period is now dubbed.Poor woman,she might have had all the wrong judgement due to Hofmans,and she did,but
what a lonely woman."Mein Gott Erbarme Dir"...

I bought the book yesterday, it is E.27.95, which is a reasonable price at it is hard cover. The book deals with more than just the Greet Hofmans crisis but basically starts of at the point where Juliana and Bernhard first meet. To my surprise the Dutch court, queen and crownprincess were much less enthousiastic at start than I heard before. They seem rather cautious towards Bernhard, and never quite sure what to make of his intentions. It was Bernhard who pressed things, writing to Juliana all the time, always complaining that Juliana didn't write him back quickly enough etc. It seems Juliana had her doubts, even in June 1937 (onmly 1 1/2 months before the engagement), but after a while it became a train that couldn't be stopped.

Bernhard had a bloody nerve btw, asking Juliana to visit the son of Ann Orr-Lewis, as the son was in Canada. The crownprincess had the boy over once, and wrote a letter to his mother Ann (who was Bernhards mistress). Bernhard asked Juliana to visit him another time and to take him home to England with her on the plane, but Juliana didn't do so. The bloody nerve of that man! He also seems rather keen on critisizing his wife on her figure, the way she dressed etc. He refers to her in letters as 'my worse half' and to himslef as 'your better half' or something to that extend. It might be a private joke between the two of them but still not very nice. Juliana seems well aware what kind of man her husband is, and in more than one leter she complains about his luxurious lifestyle, and asking him why on earth he was in Italy for example ('you don't let any entertainment pass').

It is rather odd to read how much critisism the RF received for things we find fairly normal these days, by the protestants at home. They had a swimming pool: protestants were worried that they would use it on a sunday. The prince went on his boat the Piet Hein on a sunday: protestants angry as he did not respect the sundays rest. Juliana wearing lipstick: shocking..etc etc.

Greet Hofmans, the faith healer who became the former Dutch queen’s confidant in the 1950s, was removed from the royal court after threats were received that she would be assassinated if she did not leave “voluntarily”. The revelation is contained in a new book out today.

The controversial faith healer Greet Hofmans left the Dutch royal court in 1956 after receiving a letter warning that both she and Queen Juliana’s private secretary Walraven van Heeckeren would be “assassinated”, according to the book by historian Cees Fasseur.

The existence of the anonymous letter, signed by “the Action Committee”, was unknown until now and has come to light in Fasseur’s book Juliana & Bernhard. Story of a marriage, 1936-1956.

It was, however, known that two members of former Dutch resistance groups had sent a letter to Queen Juliana’s mother, Wilhelmina, suggesting that violence might be used to solve the crisis within the monarchy caused by the Hofmans’ closeness to Queen Juliana.

Two camps

This crisis, which lasted from 1948 to 1956, split the Dutch court into two camps. On the one side were Queen Juliana and other admirers of Hofmans, and on the other Prince Bernhard, his supporters and the children, including the current Dutch queen, Beatrix.

Wednesday 12 November 2008
A controversial book about the marriage between queen Juliana and prince Bernhard has shed new light on a 52-year-old royal and political scandal.

The book's author, historian Cees Fasseur, was given exclusive access to parts of the royal archives, including papers on the role of faith healer Greet Hofmans who became Juliana's confidant in the 1950s.
By 1956 fears about the far-reaching influence of Hofmans within the royal court were leading to a constitutional crisis and had created deep rifts in the marriage between queen Juliana, the mother of the current monarch, and her husband prince Bernhard.
The book reveals for the first time the details of the machinations within the royal household which split the court into two warring camps. Juliana and Hofmans were on one side and Bernhard and the couple’s children, including the current queen, Beatrix, on the other.

I bought the book yesterday, it is E.27.95, which is a reasonable price at it is hard cover. The book deals with more than just the Greet Hofmans crisis but basically starts of at the point where Juliana and Bernhard first meet. To my surprise the Dutch court, queen and crownprincess were much less enthousiastic at start than I heard before. They seem rather cautious towards Bernhard, and never quite sure what to make of his intentions. It was Bernhard who pressed things, writing to Juliana all the time, always complaining that Juliana didn't write him back quickly enough etc. It seems Juliana had her doubts, even in June 1937 (onmly 1 1/2 months before the engagement), but after a while it became a train that couldn't be stopped.

Bernhard had a bloody nerve btw, asking Juliana to visit the son of Ann Orr-Lewis, as the son was in Canada. The crownprincess had the boy over once, and wrote a letter to his mother Ann (who was Bernhards mistress). Bernhard asked Juliana to visit him another time and to take him home to England with her on the plane, but Juliana didn't do so. The bloody nerve of that man! He also seems rather keen on critisizing his wife on her figure, the way she dressed etc. He refers to her in letters as 'my worse half' and to himslef as 'your better half' or something to that extend. It might be a private joke between the two of them but still not very nice. Juliana seems well aware what kind of man her husband is, and in more than one leter she complains about his luxurious lifestyle, and asking him why on earth he was in Italy for example ('you don't let any entertainment pass').

It is rather odd to read how much critisism the RF received for things we find fairly normal these days, by the protestants at home. They had a swimming pool: protestants were worried that they would use it on a sunday. The prince went on his boat the Piet Hein on a sunday: protestants angry as he did not respect the sundays rest. Juliana wearing lipstick: shocking..etc etc.

Gawd awfull indeed.On the book,it gets more and more the aura of brussels sprouts.

Juliana was right with her doubts on her spoiled rotten german boy.He also used her as some sort of
a Canadian mailorder company while she lived in Canada.
He constantly sent her requests to send him,whisky,vermouth,chocolates,whatever.......

It had Juliana exclaiming;"What a luxury edition of a man I got"...

She was already well aware early on in the war that he had his mistresses in London and
she wrote late september 1940;"I don't know who is sleeping with you,I know nothing,nothing,nothing".

Poor woman,she had to deal with a lot concerning that man.

In the fifties Wilhelmina on Bernhard;"Bernhard is a split personality,one day he is nice,the other nasty,
one day he shows his good side,the other day his bad.Ofcouse all that could be comedy too".

What a horrible thing to do to your own granddaughter. That makes her, not Wilhemina, sound really cold.

Well, you know the expression 'more roman than the pope' probably. She as a mere baroness was considered morganatic for her own husband, and all of a sudden 50 years later she thinks she has to uphold the ebenburtigheid principles, to which she did not stick herself.

I always do wonder why Armgard, Bernhard and Beatrix opposed Pieter as much as they are said, due to him being a commoner (from a patrician family), while they did not mind Beatrix marrying Claus, who is one of the countless German untitled nobles, not exactly a highflyer either. Personally I think that considering the exclusiveness a Dutch patrician has more glamour to in than just one of the 10.000-ends German untitled junkers, but that might be chauvinism of course.

Well, you know the expression 'more roman than the pope' probably. She as a mere baroness was considered morganatic for her own husband, and all of a sudden 50 years later she thinks she has to uphold the ebenburtigheid principles, to which she did not stick herself.

I always do wonder why Armgard, Bernhard and Beatrix opposed Pieter as much as they are said, due to him being a commoner (from a patrician family), while they did not mind Beatrix marrying Claus, who is one of the countless German untitled nobles, not exactly a highflyer either. Personally I think that considering the exclusiveness a Dutch patrician has more glamour to in than just one of the 10.000-ends German untitled junkers, but that might be chauvinism of course.

Armgard von Sierstoff-Cramm already had a divorce on her cv before she angled Bernhard's father,who was a mere Count at the time.And you can count Counts like you can count Aldi's in germany,in abundance.It was about 4 to 5 years later he was granted the title prince.She had a problem with that,being just a gräfin for 4 or 5 years,she was german remember,Hochmut and arrogance first,at that time at least.

Marc van der Linden of 'royalty' and the website 'royalty-online.nl' has placed the advice of the commission Beel on his website. And it clearly shows that Juliana kept her side of the deal completely, while Bernhard did not stick to any of the points they set for him:

A few points for Bernhard: break the contact with Sefton Delmer and Cocky Gilles & her office had to go to The Hague and leave Soestdijk.

Does anybody know who the Freule Roëll is who became HM's new lady-in-waiting? I suppose it is not Martine Feaver, widow of Jhr. Willem Roëll as she was in Canada and not a 'freule' (and apart from that not even a Roëll since she remarried).

Marc van der Linden of 'royalty' and the website 'royalty-online.nl' has placed the advice of the commission Beel on his website. And it clearly shows that Juliana kept her site of the deal completely, while Bernhard did not stick to any of the points they set for him:

It wasn't v/d Linden who saw that first,it's all over,and yes Bernhard didn't keep any of the deals made,none.One being that his "secretary"cocky Gilles had to leave the Palace and had to move her work to one of the The Hague departments/ministeries.That never happened,she remained at the Palace,more,she accompanied the RF to Porto Ercole,evry year.So,he cryed Victory and behaved like the
ass he was.I've come to dislike this man more and more,even tho it must be said he saved further damage to the Monarchy by leaking the crisis to a german magazine as Jula really had lost it all.Not in her public appearances,she was who she was,The Queen of the Netherlands,
but at home at Soestdijk she wasn't easy to cope with,"drammertje".

And what about all those rediculous "commands"by Hofmans to Juliana?Bundles of 'm on each and every subject,even political/governmental.

Sorry,but Juliana was absolutely a major mental case at that time,poor woman,and had to deal with that mostly all on her own.Imagine.
And then having Bernhard around constantly bickering her on this that and another thing.

It is a miracle still they eventually found eachother again,and became very close,especially after her abdication,they became a close-knitted set and shared almost 70 years of marriage between them.

Still,I recall Bernhard saying,not long before Juliana died,that she couldn't remember anything,her memory all gone (She was totally demented ),and,and that caught me and puzzled me at the time,he said he hadn't seen her for months.

Hadn't seen her for months.
And he lived in the very same Palace Soestdijk,and owed everything to her,but never bothered to see in on her.The coward,in mnsho.

I didn't say it was van der Linden who saw things first, but he wrote it down on his website so that saved me the trouble . I have to say that considering the branch of journalism he is in (boulevard journalism) he is more reliable and knowledgable than any other royalty reporter of these magazines/programmes (though that is a completely different discussion).

I never had a high opinion of the prince but somehow you could never help it, thinking he was a sort of 'good crook' that you can't help but like. But this book is certainly not showing him in a good light, and exposes him for the opportunist that he was. Indeed it is difficult to have some sympathy left for the prince after this. Still we should not forget that he had good sides too, his children and grand children seemed to adore him, which must have had a reason. he could be very nice, and the things he did for the veterans is admirable. It is somewhat curious that dispite all the scandals and the bad marriage Juliana and Bernhard were a very strong 'team', probably the strongest one the Dutc monarchy ever had.

According to Elsbeth Etty the book of Fasseur is not convincing i showing how Hofmans influenced Queen Juliana politically btw. But it is obvious that Juliana was an easy prey for the van Heeckerens and Hofmans, since they probably gave her some kindness and understanding that she did not get from her husband.

I am not sure to what extend 'they found each other' again in the 70-ties and afterwards. It never became the typical marriage obviously but there seem to have been a good working relationship and somehow they also appeared to be friends. Sadly most things we know about it come from prine Bernhard and he has a rather selective memory, as even prof. Fasseur notes.

It is the short version of a speech that she gave when Fasseurs book was presented, the entire speech can be found here (again, only in Dutch).

Etty said that a divorce would have been 'a enormous stimulans for the emancipation of women'... . But she has more interesting points too, basically saying that Greet Hofnams influence over Queen Juliana was not political, even Prime Minister Drees did not think that it was. And that Bernhard in the end did not stick to his side of the deal and basically continued his bachelor life style. She also has a different conclusion than Fasseur, Fasseur claims that Bernhard was right, Etty says that Juliana was....

I checked about Etty & a Juliana biography but she said in Pauw & Witteman that she will not write it, first of all she will never be asked by the court and secondly, queen Juliana's private archive will only be opened 50 years after her death, in 2054.

-
An article in the volkskrant places sidenotes at the alleged fits of anger that Juliana had. Basically they say, which wife wouldn't have those if they were married to a man who is constantly and openly cheating? Read the article in Dutch here. They call Bernhard:

To be honest I don't find Elspeth Etty that disturbing, a lot of times she makes sense in her columns, even when she is supposed to be elitist or feminist. Of course many times she does not sound sensible at all but at least she comes with a new perspective of the matter this time, and I do think that up to a point she is right that since it were the 'old boys' who judged all this that might have played a role in the report.

--
According the the Algemeen Dagblad the book is already a big succes. Even yesterday, the 1st day that they were able to sell the book, many bookshops did not have enough copies and had to order more! The bookshops already anticipated that it would sell well, but they did not expect it would be this much.

---
Cartoon characters Fokke and Sukke have their own view on the situation of course:

And in Elsevier writes that it is odd that a 60-year old gossip story gets so much attention today. Article in Dutch here.

Royalblog/GDP papers also states that Queen Juliana deserves more sympathy than is given in Fasseurs book, and prince Bernhard is too much presented as the guardian angel of the Dutch monarchy, while he was the one responsible for much of the mess.

---

And columnist Sylvain Ephimenco writes in 'Trouw' a rather harsh article about Queen Beatrix with the title 'treason of a daughter'. He critisizes Queen beatrix for releasing all these private letters etc, quite wrongly IMO.
Article in Dutch here.

I don't think the quotes from Berhard from the war-years and those of Juliana should be taken so seriously. It seems they used sarcastic humour to express their feelings.
'wat een luxe editie man heb ik wel niet' 'schijnheiligerd grote schurk' (during a stay with the pope) are quotes from Juliana about Bernhard. I don't think they humiliated each other in their letters, it simply was a sarcastic way of commenting on each others activities. 'vertel eens waarom je zo gek bent geweest om met mij te trouwen' (quote from 1987 is a late example of that) And let's face it what is so wrong of Berhard to comment on his wife's clothing. A husband likes to see his wife at her best, male pride so to speak. Bernhard, being an unimportant count in his youth, also realized that appearance was important for the upkeep (and improvement) of status. Juliana didn't bother about these things. The quote about 'ik weet niet met wie je slaapt' 'Don't know who your sleeping with' possibly referred to the people in the bombshelter in which Bernhard slept in London, Fasseur remarked that it is typical that the link with romance is automaticly made.

I didn't like the book. At some point I lost track of what was going on in the last months of 1956. Fasseur has written better books. He said that Juliana's view on things largely missed because her diaries will not be public until 2054. He could have interviewed her daughters, friends and other relatives on how Juliana reflected on the crisis in (later) life. Probably Juliana wrote letters to lots of people (alice in England, Martine Roel in Canada to name a few examples) This book is of the same caliber as his third book on Wilhelmina.... very entertaining but not very good.

I am only half-way in the book, so I will judge about the style and contents later. For now I was just very annoyed in one remark by prof. Fasseur. He quotes from letters of a courtier, Mr. van Maasdijk, and his wife, a Baroness van Tuijl van Serooskerken. Fasseur stresses that they were causing trouble and were always putting oil on the fire. He then shows a few letters in which the barones is writing to Queen Juliana that she should stand up for herself, and not accept it a second time that Bernhard sends his mistress along on wintersport holidays with Juliana, the 3 eldest princesses and without Bernhard (!). The baroness writes:

Quote:

Tell him: I don't want to have anything to do with Annie (Ann Orr-Lewis, Bernhards mistress) anymore, neither do I want that the children see her. What you do leaves me cold!

or

Quote:

In St. Anton I told you several times: you are too sweet, too good. Now I say, you are too naive.

Rather sensible advices IMHO, considering most women do not go on wintersport holidays with their husbands mistress, neither do they want the mistress to meet the children. But Fasseur uses these letters to show that the baroness was causing trouble, while the real trouble is that Bernhard had the indecency to shove his mistress up his wifes throat! Of course it is possible that Maasdijk and his wife did exactly what Fasseur claims, but his uotations does not show they do.

--
About the remarks towards each other, maybe that is their way of writing indeed, after reading more it is obvious that 'Mamie' used a simular style to 'Papie', affectionally teasing each other perhaps.

-
Another thing that struck me thus far is the intregues at court, I never knew how prominent a position all the courtiers played in this matter. And these are not only the courtiers that were later removed from court, but also courtiers that kept working there or that resigned due to other reasons. it seemed like a wasp nest and somehow the strong hand was missing, Wilhelmina seemed to have left a void, a void that Bernhard didn't want to see filled with his wife...
A third thing I found remarkable is the people that went to faith healer Greet Hofmans, a lot of nobility, patricians, businessmen, etc. Not only Juliana! Since I never read a book about the matter this all in new to me. She even helt sessions in Hattem, Zwolle and Amsterdam, with people lining up to get a free consult.

--------
About the book: according to royalblog it is only outsold by Harry Potter, they already need a second print (after being in the shops for 2 days!).

--------

Another thing: today the newspaper 'Telegraaf' had an advertisement commemorating the death of Margaretha (Greet) Hofmans, who died 50 years ago exaclty. The advertisement was anonimous, and among other things saying it was unfair that Greet's name was for always linked to the marriage crisis of Soestdijk, as it is known as the 'Greet Hofmans-affaire'.

--------

Author Anet Bleich has a rather good review (IMO), not the first part about Lockheed (which is besides the point) but the rest of the article is rather interesting. Article in the Volkskrant here (in Dutch only).

In this article in Dutch on royalblog.nl Cees van Hoore is very critical of prof. Fasseur and of Queen Beatrix. He wants rehabilitation for Juliana, and says that the character assasination by Fasseur, supported by HM The Queen is close to mother murder. Compare it to the Greek tragedy where Orestes kills his mother Klytemnestra.

In strong words he goes on, lists all Juliana's qualities, why he and many others treasure her memory, he continues that her side of the story is completely missing from the book and he mentions all the members of the press who critisized Fasseur for his one-sided book. He quotes Juliana's notorious speech in the US senate, which does not look very shocking indeed. In the end he repeats what Mark van der Linen said: replace the statue of Willem of Orange, in front of Palace Noordeinde, with a statue of Juliana on a bicycle .